tv [untitled] October 19, 2012 9:30pm-10:00pm PDT
of course the wic is not anything that will be in effect until the state moratorium so they have really no control. but if that is lifted, then that would be in place. and, of course, the conditions on the alcohol check out which is same as south van ness is a good one. realistically, any store to be competitive is going to have to have alcohol sales. trader joe's even has it. tower market has it. almost anywhere that you can buy food, it makes it difficult. people will sometimes stray away from a place that doesn't offer those because people do consume alcoholic beverages and sometimes that's part of their shopping run. and if they have to make a separate stop somewhere else to buy beer or wine or other, it makes it impractical and often discourages shopping at a particular store. so, i think they've done everything right and i'm supportive. >> commissioner hillis.
>> just a question for staff, if you know. there was a reference to the state law around kind of the staff check out of alcohol. do you know the status of that? >> no, i'm not aware of any change in that. >> all right. i would just echo commissioner antonini's thoughts. i'm supportive of this project. just a second question, sorry. whole foods on the other end of ocean avenue, does this condition -- was this included in their approval? >> i don't believe it was, but i don't believe that they have -- they have staffed check-out counters. so, they have -- these are self-check out and i believe they have more staff check out at whole foods. as far as i know, this condition was not imposed on them. >> i'm generally supportive and would move for approval with the additions for local hiring and wic that were presented by the project sponsor. >> is there a second? >> second. >> commissioner moore.
>> the only question i would ask mr. crawford and perhaps that requires a little bit of research as to whether or not the conditions regarding staffed alcohol check out resemble in language the intent of what the state is trying to do. otherwise, i think we are creating like a split vote. i would be interested in having what we are asking be consistent in intent with what the state is suggesting because they have taken it a step further and i don't think i would like to have something which is less clear than what the state is asking for. >> i will look into that. >> and would we then say, if that language is clearer, i think it should become a condition for this particular project. this is an evolving discussion and i think it would help all of us to have an equal understanding of what's implied. >> great. commissioner antonini.
>> i would assume, commissioner moore, that if state law which has precedent takes effect, then to be compliant, the project would have to make whatever changes are necessary. and i think our approval would automatically involve any kind of restrictionseses that might come forth in the future that are consistent. i think this would be true of almost any facility even if approvals were granted long ago, if new legislation comes into effect, oftentimes it's effective retroactively for facilities that are already in operation. it would depend on the nature of the legislation, but i think that's fine with me. it makes sense. >> i appreciate your clarifying that. i am not an expert on retroactive. i think some people call it grandfathering in conditions which were before. so, i'd rather be safe and say we are crafting the language to follow that what the state is trying to do.
>> would the maker of the motion concur? >> yes, he did. >> commissioner hillis made the motion. >> i agree with commissioner antonini. i think state law would apply if it was here. so, i would assume, not knowing what the state law is, let state law apply. kind of like bag ordinance here. when we impose conditions on someone to not have -- to charge for bags, it didn't matter if the city passed an ordinance that included everybody. everybody would have to charge for bag bags. and i think this is kind of a similar issue. it probably should be applied -- i think it's better that this issue be grappled with at the board and apply to all grocery stores instead of kind of -- which is kind of your point. doing it piece by piece with new grocery stores. i think it's a city issue whether alcohol statewide how alcohol gets sold.
i mean, i think state law would apply. >> we all agree. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i think what commissioner moore was trying to say was to have staff take a look at what state language is and to see whether or not if it has more clear or more definitive way of defining what check out stands are and that kind of thing. >> happy to do that. i don't have that language in front of us, so -- >> right. it would certainly apply because it's a state law, but we can bring that language back to you so in future motions you can get the language better. >> the other thing is are we going to strike [speaker not understood] and substitute something -- project sponsor will continue to work with, i think that language is not exactly correct as commissioner wu was pointing out. [speaker not understood]. >> commissioner, we're happy to take direction. my understanding is ariba works
throughout the city. perhaps on reflection, the planning commission and the condition of approval shouldn't say this particular one, but that and other similar agency. >> community based organization. that's a better word. >> that's fine. >> yes, that will work. >> thank you. was that your question? >> no. >> commissioner antonini. >> just trying to clarify on this motion. my understanding, and correct me if i'm wrong, commissioner hillis, the motion is to approve based upon the conditions that are in here in regard to alcohol sales. and if there is a state legislation that preempts this particular condition and has jurisdiction over it, then it would automatically have to comply. if for some reason the conditions of the approval were such that they were grandfathered and they don't
have to follow it, then i -- i would not think approval is null and void. whatever we approve today is whatever the condition and whatever state law will be, it will be. and if it includes this particular situation, fine. they've taken a lot of steps to make sure that alcoholic beverages are the subject of manual check out, which is what we're trying to gain overall and have some supervision on sale. so, i'm happy with the motion as it is, but i'm happy to put in language that it will, of course -- if applicable, it will conform to state law. but if it's not applicable, that's really -- we can't foresee that ahead of time. >> commissioner moore. >> i felt that director ram was summarizing it properly, that indeed you would look at the two languageses and make sure that is consistent in intent. you are the expert on that one.
>> call the question, please. >> commissioners, the motion is for approval with the understanding that staff will look at the language relative to sell alcohol and the proposed state legislation that might be coming forward and see if -- make sure that -- >> consistent. >> consistent. and with the two conditions that were offered by the project sponsor on -- one on local hiring, the amendment would be to continue to work with ariba juntos or any other community based organization on that program. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, that motion passed unanimously. commissioners, you are now on
item number 10, case no. 2012.1 196 u, board review of the affordable housing trust fund. >> good afternoon, president and commissioners. the item before you today is an ordinance sponsored by supervisor david chiu which would require monitoring reports for the housing trust fund. before i give my presentation i would like to introduce amy chen from supervisor chiu's office who would like to [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners. my name is amy chen and i'm a legislative aid representing david chiu. i'd like to take a few minutes and provide an overview for the affordable trust fund charter amendment. i should start by saying the supervisor is very supportive
of the housing trust fund. he recognizes the importance of creating a dedicated source of funding for affordable housing development in the city, especially in light of the solution of the redevelopment agency. that being said, should the voters approve the trust fund measure when it goes to the ballot in november, a number of policies that are created through the charter amendment and companion legislation will be in place for 30 years. these policy include the decrease of inclusionary housing requirement rates by 20% and increasing the threshold for the inclusionary programs in 5 to 10 units. supervisor chiu's legislate ace would create an opportunity for the city to evaluate the impact of these policies on affordable housing development by requiring the mayor's office of housing to work with the planning department to report on the policies in five years of the 30 years that the charter amendment would be in place. the legislation would allow the board of supervisors to take appropriate legislative action should it be necessary to achieve the city's affordable housing development goals.
the supervisor who [speaker not understood] the commission today will accept this legislation. our office is supportive of the mot if i indications recommended by the planning department in their report. i understand that the mayor's office of housing also has an additional language suggestions which we also support. so, i'm happy to take any questions and thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. opening it up for public comment on this -- sorry. staff? >> i just had a brief presentation. so, just a little background on the housing trust fund in november 2012, the voters will be considering [speaker not understood] and this would be a major source for affordable housing. [speaker not understood]. the monitoring proposals will include two reports, one by the mayor's office of housing and
one by us, the planning department and we work with the mayor's office of housing and they had some comments and i'm just going to briefly mention where the change will go. it's on exhibit a where it says subsection a and b where it says, based on income categories of below 120% ami [speaker not understood] substituted to say based on different income categories including very low, low, and moderate income. and daniel adams from the mayor's office of housing is here in case you guy have any questions. thank you. >> opening it up for public comment. seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> thank you. some comments, maybe a question. i think this sounds good.
it's good to have oversight. we're starting something new. we want reporting as to how things are going. i think there's nothing wrong with that, that makes a lot of sense. however, in terms of the housing, affordable housing goals that we have both regionally and locally, i mean, these are not quotas, say or goals, what is desired, but certainly, you know, that's what they are and they may or may not be achieved. but where it's knowledgeable to go see where they're going. i guess there's mention on page 2 of this report, they talk about these changes that, part of which is part of the legislation or rather the charter amendment, prop c. and the other part is a companion ordinance which has been approved by the board of supervisors. my understanding is that the
companion legislation gives the supervisorses the ability to change it in the future should they desire that. but i would think in regards to the language that decreases the on-site inclusionary housing by 20% for on-site inclusionary, that's part of legislation that our charter amendments and any changes would have to go back to a vote of the people, in my estimation. so, i think there's limits to what -- while that's interesting to look at that, there's different avenues for any kind of future revisions. plus, i understand that part of the language in prop c says these changes are what we're voting on and they're in place and the city is not allowed to put more restrictions in terms of inclusionary housing and higher fordable housing standards on builders in the future. there may be some exceptions, but i think that's what is in the language. * affordable
perhaps somebody in the mayor's office can comment on that to see if i've summarized it correctly. >> hi, this is dan adams with the mayor's office of housing. and yes, you summarized that correctly. >> okay, great. i just want to make it clear what this is. and i think as i say, it's no -- and there was also a call in some places where they wanted to also monitor -- i think this is more what supervisor weaner is talking about at the board now, to have monitoring including what would be a higher income group what would be above the 120th percentile. this is notedth language here, but all of us are concerned about the gap between affordable housing and market rate housing. it would always be good in future think about that sort of monitoring if we're really looking at what we're building to draw a line at the 120th percentile and say everything else is, you know, extraordinarily expensive and there is a middle ground there that, you know, we have to look
at, too, and see what we're doing in that regard. just a suggestion. if you wanted to comment, that's fine. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm happy to see the monitoring supports put forward. i want to know whether meeting our goals and where we're at if the voters pass prop c in november. move to approve. >> second. >> okay, commissioners. on that motion to approve, that would be with the modifications recommended by staff and the mayor's office of housing. roll call vote. commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye. >> president fong? >> aye. >> vice president wu? >> aye. >> commoditier? >> aye. >> that item passes unanimously. >> good job.
>> is there a desire to take a break or a desire to keep going here? >> we're just starting with the state package. >> okay. let's go ahead and take a very short break. i know we have quite a bit on the agenda still and if we can meet back here at 1:15, that would be great. 2:15, sorry. >> the commission is taking a 15-minute recess. >>please >> we are taking item number 13 out of order and will hear it next. that is case no. 2007.05 58u transit center district plan. this is program implementation documents. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm joshua switzky with planning department staff. when you proved the transit center plan in may you also
approved the plans program implementation document in resolution 18-635. that program implementation document inventories all the public improvements recommended by the plan and lays out a funding program to allocate the projected revenues from the various funding sources to fund those projects. the funding sources include mello-roos district as well as new plan impact fee and other dedicated funding sources outside of the -- whats was implemented through the plan. the program implementation document and the revenues will be allocated and implemented over time through the city's inter agency plan implementation committee which was created by the charter and allocated by the board of supervisors. the implementation document and the funding program while they do lay out sort of a proportionate allocation of revenues, it doesn't express priority in terms of the timing of revenues as they come in.
this is a long-term plan, a 20 to 25 years we estimate until these revenues will come in over time. these revenues include the new open space sea created for the plan which we estimate and the funding plan say it will raise $47 million over the plan area. of that $47 million the fund allocates 12-1/2 million dollars outside of the area which $9 million will be used to fund open space improvementses in the chinatown neighborhood, which is one of the densest neighbors in the city adjacent to the downtown. and as such, growth in the plan area will have impacts on the need for additional open space in chinatown. there was a request at the joint hearing at parks and rec meeting we calendar this item to consider adding additional language to the implementation
document to express priority for early investment from early impact fee revenues be directed towards open space improvementses in chinatown. as we are very timely. so, we put together this in draft lapping wa that is before you today for your consideration, and i'll just read what that language would say. the additional language would go under the implementation and responsibility section of the implementation document. and the language would state, notwithstanding the above growth in the plan area will create immediate needs for open space enhancements in chinatown. several open spaceses in the plan area such as oscar park will be implementedth in the near term with the identified funds other than those from the impact fees for the funding program and all but $2,000,000 of the transit towers early to plan open space impact fees will be dedicated towards city park via an in-kind agreement described in uncodified section of 3a2 of ordinance number 182-12. therefore prioritizing early investment in park improvements in chinatown from the plan's
initial open space c revenues including transit towers $2 million payment would serve the greatest public good and the plans and objectives of the district plan. that is the language planning staff has prepared based on the request from the commission. it's before you to consider as proposed or added language for your desire. staff recommends approving the draft resolution and we're happy to answer any questions. >> commissioner wu. i'm sorry, public comment on this item if there is any. public comment portion is closed. commissioner wu. >> i want to thank staff for working on this. i have made the request last week. thanks, staff, for working so diligently. i'm happy with the language. so, maybe i'll leave it open for other commissioners to comment first. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have a question to staff. i just want to be on firm ground here with respect to the
justification. it says on page 2, the first paragraph, based on these projections and consistent with the nexus study, i read the nexus study. and the next us study says that the impact fee documented in the nexus study is sub poed to be applied in downtown san francisco to fund park recreation, et cetera, and then it says see map 1 at the end of the report. map 1's boundaries of downtown san francisco don't include chinatown. it does include the tenderloin, it does include other areas of densely closed in neighborhoods. it also goes on and says that the impact fee revenue will be
used to pay for some of these required to meet the needs generated by new residential development and population growth in the downtown. it also states in the nexus study that it is unlikely that this growth will take place north of market, is my interpretation, because north of market has essentially in the nexus studies where it's been built out. therefore, most of the projected development residential and otherwise is going to take place south of market. my question is, then, how do we justify the use of such amounts of money in neighborhoods outside of the boundary of the nexus study itself? >> commissioner, the nexus study in terms of its analysis of the growth that it focuses on is in these boundaries. new growth is in these boundaries. if you look at other tables,
including for instance table 5 in the nexus study, discusses the need for park improvements not just in the downtown, but, in fact, city-wide to support this group. people use parks, not just in their immediate neighborhood, but more broadly and that's the increased demand for open space in the immediate vicinity of the growth also has ripple effectseses out wards as people use other parks as the area densifies. it does support improvements that could be used not just within the boundaries of the growth area, but more broadly. the -- i don't believe that there is distinctly a legal requirement even the context of this boundary, the money has to be spent within it. we're talking about something that is maybe a block or two outside that boundary. i believe that it could generally be considered in the
downtown area for the cost of the projectionses, demand and so forth. but we did have to define a boundary in terms of what was the focus of the growth -- the demand associated with the growth that we were investigating might have to be drawn has somewhere, but that doesn't mean the open space must be spent specifically within that boundary. similar to the downtown park fund which is only assessed on projects in the c-3, it can be spent on parks immediately or nearby the 3c. it's been spent for instance i think on [speaker not understood] park, city hall. none of those are literally within the c-3 boundaries. they're nearby. they're close enough, they're a reasonable distance to serve the growth within the area. >> if i might understand, it might refresh my memory, how was the decision then made to target chinatown instead of the tenderloin, for example? >> it's -- more of it is more proximate to the plan area.
>> the tenderloin is in the plan area. >> more proximate to the transit center district plan area. tenderloin is within the study area of this nexus study. this nexus study could be used to justify open space impact fees beyond this plan. this plan is only a subset of the nexus study area which analyzed open space needs for downtown and south of market more broadly. this is actually a broader neck us study that we're using for this plan. >> i guess i'm having difficulty understanding how the nexus study says about the needs being generated for new development then translates to the use of the money in other areas outside, when in fact it says application of the relevant waiting factors, the increase of 32,000 residents in the downtown -- not around the city -- translates an expectedth increase of just
over 17,000 park users and that the increase of 69,000 employees translates to an expected increase of 50,000 park users for a total of 67,000 additional park users in the downtown area. and it just seems to me that if there are that many new park users who are going to be located mainly south of market, then, you know, you would think that the attendant facilities park, recreation and other things, would then be in close proximity or reasonably close proximity to where the growth and development is happening on a locational basis. >> maybe i could also jump in here, commissioner. i understand the point. the monies are being raised and development is happening south of market. in fact, most of the fee money is being spent in that area.
but it is true, and i think we have done this elsewhere, where the -- where the actual usage by the -- by people who are in the plan area, whether it be residents or workers, is not just in that area. they use parks in other parts of the city. therefore, there is the direct impact, we believe, that goes beyond the boundaries of the plan area itself. it's not as intense as it is in the plan area, but there is an impact in the use that goes beyond the plan area. >> given that, though, then, how is the priority given to the particular neighborhood that we're talking about in chinatown? >> because it's the closest parks outside of the plan area. there are no parks within the plan area today and there are -- there are parks south of the plan area, i don't know what they are. there would be one or two in rincon hill. it's the most proximate parks outside of the plan.
>> commissioner moore. >> i express my support for prioritization. all fund for chinatown parks, however, i would have appreciated slightly more definition. since chinatown is heavily impacted by the studies -- by the shadow studies, we were presented last week, i think there are certain parts of the four parks which are being affected which are more critical to chinatown thans others and most effect $the critical park, largest being portsmouth square, it would have been a little more definition in this prioritization which would address that those fund would be directed early on towards portsmouth square. i would be more comfortable than saying that it randomly implies could be used to all four before anybody else come in line.